Romney faces both ways on foreign policy

MITT Romney chose a military base in Virginia to deliver a major foreign policy speech laden with the fiery rhetoric of American exceptionalism and martial nationalism.

But reading between the lines there is little discernible difference between the foreign policy stance Mr Romney outlined and that of the current administration, which he derides as weak and apologetic.

So pronounced was the gulf between the speech's bellicose language and its policy moderation that one expert suggests the former was designed for domestic consumption and the latter for foreign.

''Mr Romney is a moderate by nature,'' said Professor Thomas Schwartz, a presidential historian and foreign policy specialist. He said the speech appeared to be a reassuring signal to the world that a Romney administration would not return to the neo-conservative foreign policy of George W. Bush's first term.

"The world will grow darker" ... Mitt Romney speaks to cadets at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington. Photo: Getty Images

''I want to believe him as much as anyone. But when we look at the Middle East today - with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threatening to destabilise the region, with violent extremists on the march and with an American ambassador and three others dead, likely at the hands of al-Qaeda affiliates - it is clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the President took office.''

So what about policy? Mr Romney offered his support for sanctions against Iran, drone strikes against al-Qaeda and the creation of a democratic and independent Palestinian state.

He said he would use American influence to promote reform in Egypt, assist in stabilising Libya and in Syria would support ''those members of the opposition who share our values''. He said he would pressure the US' NATO allies to increase defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP.

All of this is current US policy. Mr Romney condemned Mr Obama for defence spending cuts, apparently referring to those agreed to by both parties and specifically championed by his running mate, Paul Ryan.

Of course, there are genuine points of difference. Mr Romney's support for Israel is clearly far less qualified than the current administration's and his position on the ''pivot'' towards Asia to counter the rise of China is difficult to decode in the speech. Professor Schwartz believes the unilateral, nationalist tone that pervaded the speech to be genuine rather than affected.

Mr Romney said America had led the world during the past century through moral and military might. ''Unfortunately, this president's policies have not been equal to our best examples of world leadership.''